Blackwell v. Jones ( 2023 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 MARCUS BLACKWELL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00154-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 D. JONES, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Marcus Blackwell brings this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 14 at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 1-1.) Because Blackwell is no longer incarcerated, on July 15 17, 2023, this Court ordered him to either pay the $402 filing fee or file an application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis for a non-inmate by August 16, 2023. (ECF No. 4.) That 17 deadline has expired, and Blackwell did not pay the filing fee, apply for pauper status as 18 a non-inmate, or otherwise respond. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 21 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 22 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 24 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 26 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 27 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 28 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 4 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 5 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 7 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Blackwell’s 8 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 9 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 10 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 11 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 14 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 15 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 16 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 17 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 18 Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 19 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. 20 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because litigation cannot progress without 21 a plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders, the only alternative is to enter a second 22 order setting another deadline. But entering a second order will only delay the inevitable 23 and further squander the Court’s finite resources because Blackwell ignored the first 24 order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. 25 So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 28 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 1 || prejudice based on Marcus Blackwell's failure to either pay the filing fee or file an 2 || application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s July 17, 2023, 3 || order. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 5 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. If Marcus Blackwell wishes to 6 || pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing 7 || fee or apply for pauper status. 8 DATED THIS 28" Day of August 2023. 10 MIRANDA M. DU 11 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28